Paraphrases and summaries: A means of clarification or a vehicle for articulating a preferred version of student accounts?

The use of group discussions as a means to facilitate learning from experiences is well documented in adventure education literature. Priest and Naismith (1993) assert that the use of the circular discussion method, where the leader poses questions to the participants, is the most common form of facilitation in adventure education. This paper draws on transcripts of facilitation sessions to argue that the widely advocated practice of leader summaries or paraphrases of student responses in these sessions functions as a potential mechanism to control and sponsor particular knowledge(s). Using transcripts from recorded facilitation sessions the analysis focuses on how the leader paraphrases the students’ responses and how these paraphrases or ‘formulations’ function to modify or exclude particular aspects of the students’ responses. I assert that paraphrasing is not simply a neutral activity that merely functions to clarify a student response, it is a subtle means by which the leader of the session can, often inadvertently or unknowingly, alter the student’s reply with the consequence of favouring particular knowledge(s). Revealing the subtle work that leader paraphrases perform is of importance for educators who claim to provide genuine opportunities for students to learn from their experience

Validation of a high resolution NGS method for detecting spinal muscular atrophy carriers among phase 3 participants in the 1000 Genomes Project

BACKGROUND: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is the most common pan-ethnic cause of early childhood death due to mutations in a single gene, SMN1. Most chromosome 5 homologs have a functional gene and dysfunctional copy, SMN2, with a single synonymous base substitution that results in faulty RNA splicing. However, the copy number of SMN1 and SMN2 is highly variable, and one in 60 adults worldwide are SMA carriers. Although population-wide screening is recommended, current SMA carrier tests have not been incorporated into targeted gene panels. METHODS: Here we describe a novel computational protocol for determining SMA carrier status based solely on individual exome data. Our method utilizes a Bayesian hierarchical model to quantify an individual’s carrier probability given only his or her SMN1 and SMN2 reads at six loci of interest. RESULTS: We find complete concordance with results obtained with the current qPCR-based testing standard in known SMA carriers and affecteds. We applied our protocol to the phase 3 cohort of the 1,000 Genomes Project and found carrier frequencies in multiple populations consistent with the present literature. CONCLUSION: Our process is a convenient, robust alternative to qPCR, which can easily be integrated into the analysis of large multi-gene NGS carrier screens. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12881-015-0246-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

How do courts award noneconomic damages? Does it matter if the state is the defendant? This article addresses these questions in the context of medical malpractice appeals to the Spanish Supreme Court. Moreover, this study provides the first empirical analysis of the quantification of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in administrative courts, where the state is the defendant, and in civil courts. This separation of jurisdictions is a common feature in civil law tradition countries. Yet, critics of this separation in general, and specialized courts in particular, argue that parties might be subject to different treatments and that similar cases might reach different outcomes, namely in terms of the quantification of damages. A consistent result of this paper is that no significant differences between noneconomic damages in civil and administrative appeals were found. The separation of jurisdictions does not necessarily imply that courts reach different outcomes, even when the state is the defendant. Citizens should not refrain from bringing their claims forward against the state, a more powerful party. In the current era of increasing juridification and judicialization of modern life (Ginsburg 2009; Hirschl 2006; Hirschl 2011), it is crucial for society that citizens and other parties litigating with the state are not disadvantageously treated.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe